Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

This provision is not applicable because Lane County has not established a lower threshold for significance than Subsection (a) above. (c) The aggregate site is on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996. This provision is not applicable because the expansion site has not been included on the inventory of significant aggregate sites of the Metro Plan. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, except for an expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on March 1, 1996 had an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on that date, an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply: (A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class I soils on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or This provision is not applicable because there are no Class I soils on the site. (B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class II or of a combination of Class II and Class I or Unique soil on NRCS maps available on June 11, 2004, unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds: (i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and Lane counties; Due to the percentage of Class II classification soils, the aggregate site cannot be considered significant unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds 60 feet in Lane County. “Thickness of aggregate layer” is defined above as “the depth of the water-lain deposit of sand, stones, and pebbles of sand-sized fraction or larger, minus the depth of the topsoil and nonaggregate overburden.” The applicants’ report concludes that the average cumulative width of the aggregate layer is 70.5 feet with a maximum overburden of 4 feet. Based upon the evidence in the record, it appears to staff that the applicant has demonstrated that there exists a “significant” Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the sampling method for the quality analysis of the aggregate was inadequate to determine significance of the resource. This vote is the initial basis for the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the applicant has demonstrated there exists a “significant” Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site and the analysis of potential conflicts under Step 3 with conditions to minimize those conflicts proposed by the applicant is warranted. The Planning Commissions proceeded jointly to develop a recommendation for their elected officials under Step 3. STEP 3: MINIMIZE CONFLICTS OAR 660-023-180(5): For a PAPA application involving an aggregate site determined to be significant under section (3) of this rule, the process for this decision is set out in subsections (a) through (g) of this section. (a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the purpose of identifying conflicts with proposed mining and processing activities. The impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed in subsection (b) of this section and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area, except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance. For a proposed expansion of an existing aggregate site, the impact area shall be measured Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion Agenda Cover Memo Page 8 of 23